Conservative Plan for Iran: Dissemble about Obama Plan for Iran
Posted by Patrick Barry
An unfortunate side effect of attending a bloggers' conference is that it leaves you with very little time to blog, especially when the conference is as enriching as the one I just attended, hosted by the fine people over at the Middle East Institute. One thing that has apparently continued, even if my blogging hasn't, is the dissembling perpetuated by opponents of the Obama administration's policy of engaging Iran. Michael Rubin's piece flagged by James is the latest example. Looking at the revelation of Iran's secret nuclear facility, as well as their recent missile test, Rubin concludes that its enough to put "a nail in the coffin of the Obama doctrine" of engagement.
Given the tendency of former Bush administration officials to mistake means with ends, Rubin's take is understandable. It also has the advantage of being totally wrong. For the billionth time - ENGAGEMENT IS NOT THE GOAL. It never was. The Obama administration has been perfectly consistent on this point, stating it again and again. At a briefing at the State Department put together by MEI, a senior administration official working on Iran emphasized repeatedly that engagement was NOT the goal of U.S. policy toward Iran. What he did emphasize is that engagement is an instrument for clarifying Iranian intentions, including on the issue of their nuclear program. From that perspective it doesn't seem to have failed at all. To the contrary. When was the last time the IC was so unified in its position toward Iran? Even the Russians seem to have moved closer toward the view that Iran's recent behavior has been pretty concerning.
Not only do the Michael Rubins of the world tend to ignore this, when you consider that engagement-as-a-means has become a near-constant refrain by the administration, it appears as though they're doing it willingly.
I am not on irans side but the u s has been screwing them since 1953. is it any wonder they want nukes. if a guy came by every day and threatened to set your house on fire would not you try defend your property? never mind the question ,you've already let your own govt burn your house down. so vote republican again,you've got nothing to loose...
Posted by: valentines day presents | December 22, 2009 at 01:38 AM
Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat
Posted by: muhtar | January 25, 2010 at 03:28 PM
Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!
Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 26, 2010 at 01:24 AM
Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!
Posted by: cheap coach bags | January 26, 2010 at 09:35 PM
Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!
Posted by: cheap coach purses | January 27, 2010 at 07:57 PM
I am so with you FRANCK MULLER Watch
Posted by: bvlgari watches | February 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM
A business is successful to the extent that it provides a product or service that contributes to happiness in all of its forms.
Posted by: paycheck advance | April 16, 2010 at 07:32 PM
If you hold the 70-680 Exam, then you can take two exams to upgrade to MCSE 2003. These special fast-track exams are 220-602. By the way, on the MCSE 2000 track, exam 70-216 was a 'killer'. I thought that 70-620 was twice as hard as the other exams; my point is that there is no such viscous exam on the MCSE 2003 track. In my opinion, the 70-680 is no harder than the other exams.
Posted by: william | May 28, 2010 at 02:42 AM
Türkiyenin ilk Hiphop Sitesi Hiphop, Gekko G Fan Sitesi Gekko G, Mask animasyon thank you very good site
Posted by: Kodes | June 02, 2010 at 03:18 PM
like the post, and I agree somewhat with, To be very truthful.
Posted by: mbt | June 02, 2010 at 09:36 PM